The Enigma of Anarchism.
- Thread starter Kaze Araki
- Start date
Yeah sure its not voluntarily. But that is besides the point. A country or region that operates under the principles of voluntary anarchism will devour itself in a civil war as well in no time.
A) Its voluntary, so everyone who thinks its a stupid idea is left to do its own thing. Including starting their own party/organization. One that will be way more effective at distributing property and maintaining order.
B) Such an organization would be capable of organized violence, unlike anarchistic splintered factions. They would be wiped from the map in any serious conflict in no time.
To that extend, it simply makes anarchism impractical. Somalia is just an example what happens when there is no government that is capable of maintaining order. Murder, chaos, civil war. Because there is no one stopping these warlords.
Self centered has nothing to do with it. Humans just dont like standing out from the crowd.
Anyways, thats not the point. People who now say they are law abiding citizens probably are, but if you ask them if they would still not break the laws if we abolish them all, there answers are to be viewed with skepticism. Good chance a whole bunch of them will suddenly start looting and rioting if there is nothing that can stop them. Take a look at Canada, their police went on a strike for a day, and riots broke out not much later.
See, thats were it goes wrong already. That means you have a organization trained to some extend in combat, probably much more then the average citizen, who is under not central authorities control. IE, they are in control. Who is there to stop them from starting their own protection racket? Come on, you are not that naive to think that idealism like that is actually gonna stop anyone from getting rich fast and easy.
That is the sole reason why we have given the state the monopoly on violence. Because the state is protected by a number of fail safes, and more importantly, because the population of said state trusts the state or thereby legitimizes its rule. Society accepts that the state uses its ability to inflict violence in a responsible manner that is acceptable to society. In an anarchist model, the central state is gone, thus there is no way to get a legit defense apparatus to protect society from crime and war.
lexus your first example is not a centralized group it is infact a hundred groups and a few of those groups are rampaging warlords but in your example you view the country as one. Dont do that 
What do laws have to do with it? There is no law that obliges people to help out someone who is getting an hearth attack on the middle of a busy street. Or to help people in general. It makes you stand out and that is uncomfortable for humans. I know it because Im not the kind of person to help anyone on the middle of the street. It makes me feel highly uncomfortable to take the lead when there are a dozen of people around me, people I dont know. I think why doesnt someone else take action? Im 21, there must be someone more suited to help out right? The funny thing is that everyone thinks that, because that how humans naturally work. Laws or no laws, that principle is the same.
Sports team is loosing, racial tensions, the sudden and total collapse of infrastructure and economy that will inevitably follow in an anarchist area, or simply because they can and there is no one to stop them.
Excellent you just compared an ANARCHIST establishment to a REGION without government... I think you're missing the point somehow...
Laws... if theres is police.. if there are help services.. that uphold thows laws and infrastructure... then the diffusion of responsibility becomes a reality.. the true issue of the diffussion is that ITS NOT MY JOB There are people with specific jobs to tend to those specific needs... Based on a system of control. Not a system of choice.
You said it yourself PEOPLE REQUIRE CONTROL... But if you control them you cant expect them to act OUTSIDE of that area of control. So please... use that gray mass and tell me why you forcing the ideals that you support from a standpoint WITHIN a system of control HAS ANY bearing on that which does not have one.
Youre reasons for revolts are pointless.. Riots due to sports teams? Racial tensions? Collapse of infrastructure? these are all things that come WITH GOVERNMENT
The principle which you have yet to understand or even read up on.. is that people revert to what is known as community.. Those that can, do.. those that cant, dont.
No, showed what will happen to an Anarchist establishment within a few years.
Right, because there is someone with a specific job to call the ambulance when someone in front of you gets an hearth attack. On top of that, its utterly wrong what you claim. You say people dont call the ambulance because they think someone who work for the ambulance or in the health care should do that. If that is the case, people shouldnt be more inclined to help someone who has an hearth attack when there is no one around. Yet thats the interesting thing, people ARE MORE INCLINED to help someone when he has an hearth attack on a quiet street with almost no one around. The less people around, the more likely youre gonna react, and the reaction time of people around the person in need also improves. The more people, the less likely youre gonna react and the slower the reaction time of people.
See, it has nothing to do with laws or the existence of ambulances. Its human nature that tells us not to act in a way that draws to much attention on ourselves.
Another example. Studies have been done where they had one subject in a class, with several other people. Each student was asked the same obvious question. The catch. The other students were instructed to give obviously false answers. What happened, the test subject would suddenly give the false answers as well, even though he knew he was giving false answers. Then they allowed one other student to give the right answer. Suddenly, the test subject was far more likely to give the right answer as well. Why? Because he would no longer stand apart from the crowd on his own. There was someone else who took the first step setting him/herself apart from the group and now it becomes a simple matter of choosing with which group you want to side. See? Human nature.
And pray tell why wouldnt people revolt anymore when their sports team looses? Especially when most of those riots are started by people who dont care about the sport, but are there because of the rioting? Those people will find a reason to riot, either against the police, or against similar minded people from the next block. You know, hooligans.
And racism will not magically disappear when we would all suddenly adopt Anarchism now would it? So racial tensions remain, and they might again be the cause for riots.
And collapse of infrastructure. You bet your ass Im gonna riot when they take away when the infrastructure collapses because it suddenly becomes almost impossible to maintain the electric net, the power plants, the internet servers, etc because those tasks no longer are centralized. Not to mention the sudden loss of private property. You bet people who have nothing with Anarchism are gonna riot when they suddenly loose all that. Especially when there are a bunch of people who manage to convince the angry crowd its all the fault of those Anarchists. You will have a slaughter on your hands.
Right, because there is someone with a specific job to call the ambulance when someone in front of you gets an hearth attack. On top of that, its utterly wrong what you claim. You say people dont call the ambulance because they think someone who work for the ambulance or in the health care should do that. If that is the case, people shouldnt be more inclined to help someone who has an hearth attack when there is no one around. Yet thats the interesting thing, people ARE MORE INCLINED to help someone when he has an hearth attack on a quiet street with almost no one around. The less people around, the more likely youre gonna react, and the reaction time of people around the person in need also improves. The more people, the less likely youre gonna react and the slower the reaction time of people.
See, it has nothing to do with laws or the existence of ambulances. Its human nature that tells us not to act in a way that draws to much attention on ourselves.
Another example. Studies have been done where they had one subject in a class, with several other people. Each student was asked the same obvious question. The catch. The other students were instructed to give obviously false answers. What happened, the test subject would suddenly give the false answers as well, even though he knew he was giving false answers. Then they allowed one other student to give the right answer. Suddenly, the test subject was far more likely to give the right answer as well. Why? Because he would no longer stand apart from the crowd on his own. There was someone else who took the first step setting him/herself apart from the group and now it becomes a simple matter of choosing with which group you want to side. See? Human nature.
And pray tell why wouldnt people revolt anymore when their sports team looses? Especially when most of those riots are started by people who dont care about the sport, but are there because of the rioting? Those people will find a reason to riot, either against the police, or against similar minded people from the next block. You know, hooligans.
And racism will not magically disappear when we would all suddenly adopt Anarchism now would it? So racial tensions remain, and they might again be the cause for riots.
And collapse of infrastructure. You bet your ass Im gonna riot when they take away when the infrastructure collapses because it suddenly becomes almost impossible to maintain the electric net, the power plants, the internet servers, etc because those tasks no longer are centralized. Not to mention the sudden loss of private property. You bet people who have nothing with Anarchism are gonna riot when they suddenly loose all that. Especially when there are a bunch of people who manage to convince the angry crowd its all the fault of those Anarchists. You will have a slaughter on your hands.
I need to reemphasize my previous point once again in front of dishonest attempts to label Anarchism as analogous to Somalia, rioting and looting. This is not to mention the complete distortion of historical accounts.
Anarchism, from a Left Libertarian perspective can be viewed as voluntary socialism, egalitarianism, anti-military and grass-root democracy.
@Zero Phoenix
I have stated in my previous post, it is not a matter of whether Anarchism is flawed or not as an ideology - that's not even an issue. I'm pointing out that Anarchism - compared to any other ideology, has the ability to correct itself due to its strong grass-root democracy. This is something that you neither able to deny nor answer.
Anarchism, from a Left Libertarian perspective can be viewed as voluntary socialism, egalitarianism, anti-military and grass-root democracy.
@Zero Phoenix
I have stated in my previous post, it is not a matter of whether Anarchism is flawed or not as an ideology - that's not even an issue. I'm pointing out that Anarchism - compared to any other ideology, has the ability to correct itself due to its strong grass-root democracy. This is something that you neither able to deny nor answer.
Ok... My turn LETS LOOK AT HISTORY! there was a system of democracy before America... it didnt end so well for them did it.. The romans? so... if the romans are any indication of what will happen to america.. kiss you little landy byebye!
I am sorry but if you are going to continue to sit there and make the inccorrect comparisons and calling it history and fact... get ready for shock and awe...
Rome was NOT a democracy. Ever since Ceasar came along, Rome has been run by increasingly incompetent dictators. On top of that, their economy was based on slaves, which in the end undermined the whole economy. And it was overstretched and under attack from the north. Their economy collapsed, their armies became impossible to maintain, so the Western Roman Empire fell over. Note that it was just the Western empire that failed, since the Eastern Empire managed to exist for a whole lot longer until it finally succumbed to constant military attacks from the Ottomans.
But yes, if America were to become a dictatorship run by mentally unstable idiots, then yes, America will perish.
[MENTION=45]Kaze Araki[/MENTION] Im not comparing Anarchism with Somalia. Im comparing what Anarchism will succumb to with Somalia. While its all nice and idealistic, its also very unpractical, has zero fail safes against civil wars and unrest, is economically inviable and it has no way of protecting itself from outside threats. Thats chaos waiting to happen.
But yes, if America were to become a dictatorship run by mentally unstable idiots, then yes, America will perish.
[MENTION=45]Kaze Araki[/MENTION] Im not comparing Anarchism with Somalia. Im comparing what Anarchism will succumb to with Somalia. While its all nice and idealistic, its also very unpractical, has zero fail safes against civil wars and unrest, is economically inviable and it has no way of protecting itself from outside threats. Thats chaos waiting to happen.
Sigh.. Seriously do you even care about what the founding father were thinking? do you not see the 5000 thousand plus comparisons between America and the Roman Empire?
Golden Eagles? senates voted for by noblemen? honor amongst citizens, responsibility... etc
Not only the comparisons but also the flaws in mandate, law, economy? I dont understand how you can cal the romans mentally unstable idiots.. I mean your founding fathers based their entire idea for the independence of the USA on their system. But hey whatever floats your boat.
Seriously.. you dismissed what was fact... just to prove that SOMALIA = WHAT ANARCHISM LEADS TO. Congratulations youve just lost some credibility.
Also just to get back to it. You are wrong about human nature. You are right about sheep culture but that is all an effect from indoctrination that you have suffered from THIS society. Not all of us are afflicted by it.
You keep mentioning studies and never ever list a credible reference.. Now I dont care about that but I would like to know just what skewed your opinion about human nature so damn much. Still you said something that proves my point rather then yours because you chose to ignore what I said and substituted your own interpretation of my argument.
By giving people specific jobs it makes it less likely that if you see someone get hit by a car that you will run over and immediately start doing CPR... ESPECIALLY in large crowds. If you are the only person there. There is a 98.2% probability that you will help. If there are even 3 other people theres only 4% probability. Why do you think everyone always has to shout CALL 911!
Why does this help my argument and not yours?
the true issue of the diffussion is that ITS NOT MY JOB There are people with specific jobs to tend to those specific needs... Based on a system of control. Not a system of choice.
Because You said it yourself PEOPLE REQUIRE CONTROL... But if you control them you cant expect them to act OUTSIDE of that area of control.
Its all about control, what you eat, what you wear, what you consume, what you buy, how you must think, whats right and wrong, diffusion of responsibility, ITS ALL CONTROL.
The problem over and over again is control. It always has been and it always will be.
How many people will care though? They argue the same things as you! Fallacy upon fallacy of distorted arguments from biased points of view.
Thats simply what anarchism wants to get rid of *shrugs* but you fight so fiercely against it I cannot help but think youve got some personal demons to battle.. I think im done talking about anarchy for awhile.. It was never my thing to begin with.
Yes, because America was based on Caligula or Nero's idea of good statesmanship. I am surprised you guys didnt burn Washington down a few times just for the hell of it. Or used the White House to hold massive orgies while the people outside were starving.
Go read a history book man.
What are you talking about. You know it would be a lot nice if you writing had some more structure to it...
Go study Social Psychology for a year and get back to me to tell me how absolutely right I was.
Right, and hundreds of Psychologists are all wrong. Only you got it right! Only you are smart enough to see the truth while the rest of the world is blind. Its the rest of the world that has a problem not me. Yes, that sounds very *ahem* likely *ahem*.
Personal demons to battle? Are you serious?
Go read a history book man.
What are you talking about. You know it would be a lot nice if you writing had some more structure to it...
Go study Social Psychology for a year and get back to me to tell me how absolutely right I was.
Right, and hundreds of Psychologists are all wrong. Only you got it right! Only you are smart enough to see the truth while the rest of the world is blind. Its the rest of the world that has a problem not me. Yes, that sounds very *ahem* likely *ahem*.
Personal demons to battle? Are you serious?
[MENTION=45]Kaze Araki[/MENTION]: My recent discussion with Zero on the topic of civilization made me think of something. You previous used the native American hunter-gatherers as an example of anarchism, yet I realize that they weren't a civilization. Is it possible for civilization and anarchy to coexist?
Congratulations... youve succeeded in sapping my strength to argue with you on this subject. I have noticed from other topics that you speak without knowing EXACTLY what you're saying AND COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY REGARD IT AS TRUTH and you want ME?! to go back to school and what? get my masters on the subject? Cause ive got my bachelor.. do you?
Your posts are becoming increasingly antagonistic.. Ignoring the basic principles of arguing and skipping straight to what I caught Zero doing(sorry buddy gotta use you for a sec <3)
Argumentum Verbosium
While you MAY be aware of America's history you dont fully grasp the gravity of what that implies because you speak of romans as if they were uncivilized brutes. Society back then WAS DIFFERENT. You judge everything from your own perspective not ONCE have i seen you shift into someone elses.
Yes this is me attacking you PERSONALLY incase you were confused.
Having a Bachelor in what? The fact that you have a Bachelor doesnt mean you are knowledgeable on every topic. And even if you have a Bachelor in history Im compelled to ask you in what period exactly. No, it seems to me that mentioning a Bachelor was just a vain attempt to scare me into thinking youre right on the subject. It is however, a lame attempt. Instead of showing off with your degrees, why dont you go find me a more compelling piece of evidence that America was established on late Rome's principles other then by showing some iconography similarities.
Oh really. Im sorry but I was just honestly confused by what you wrote.
No, I dont think Romans were uncivilized brutes. I am saying that ever since Ceasar came into power, Rome has been led by increasingly incompetent dictators. Nero and Caligula are just two fine examples of these incompetent idiots. One burned down Rome, the other promoted his favorite horse to consul. And more corrupt and retarded idiots followed after them. You were saying that America would end up as Rome because it was (perhaps) founded on the principles of early Rome, in an attempt to attack my point about Somalia. I pointed out the sheer stupidity of this argument, since obviously, America and late Rome (the one that actually disintegrated and collapsed) have absolutely nothing in common (seeing how America is not run by retarded dictators and their favorite horses).
Oh really. Im sorry but I was just honestly confused by what you wrote.
No, I dont think Romans were uncivilized brutes. I am saying that ever since Ceasar came into power, Rome has been led by increasingly incompetent dictators. Nero and Caligula are just two fine examples of these incompetent idiots. One burned down Rome, the other promoted his favorite horse to consul. And more corrupt and retarded idiots followed after them. You were saying that America would end up as Rome because it was (perhaps) founded on the principles of early Rome, in an attempt to attack my point about Somalia. I pointed out the sheer stupidity of this argument, since obviously, America and late Rome (the one that actually disintegrated and collapsed) have absolutely nothing in common (seeing how America is not run by retarded dictators and their favorite horses).